





REPORGM: © beat: 


| Special Commission of 1925 


TO THE 
General Assembly 


oO) tel 1 Es 


PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 
IN THE U.S. A. 


BALTIMORE :: MARYLAND 
MAY, 1926 


= if ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE THE SECRETARY |e 
cs 514 WITHERSPOON BUILDING, PHILADELPHIA J 





—— 


Bresbytérian Church in the 
U.S.A. General Assembly. 


Report of the Special 
CR aati 8G Peto BE es tae BA? BPA 


* 
: a 
« 
< 
fats 
¢ a 
aby 4 
a 
4 
» 
¥ 
.* ‘ 
t * A 
= ; 
pies xed 
bi i 1 en al 7 
‘+ SS s 
7 , 
. 





’ oe ae oy ? io : 
> "lee - z= z si f a de! es pee ‘aad 


REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION OF 1925 TO 

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN 

CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

MEETING AT BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, MAY 27, 
1926 


Authority for the existence and the work of the Special 
Commission, and for the presentation of this report is con- 
tained in the following resolution adopted by the General 
Assembly of 1925: 


“That a Commission of Fifteen members be ap- 
pointed to study the present spiritual condition of 
our church and the causes making for unrest, and 
to report to the next General Assembly, to the end 
that the purity, peace, unity and progress of the 
Church may be assured.” 


In accordance with an accompanying action of the same 
General Assembly, the Moderator appointed the following mem- 
bers of the Special Commission of 1925: 

Ministers: Rev. Henry C. Swearingen, D.D., LL.D., St. Paul, 
Minn., Chairman; Rev. Prof. Alfred H. Barr, D.D., Chicago, 
libs sRev. Hugh T. Kerr, D.D.,.LU-:D., Pittsburgh,.Pa.; Rev. 
Mark A. Matthews, D.D., LL.D., Seattle, Wash.; Rev. Lapsley 
A. McAfee, D.D., Berkeley, Cal.; Rev. Harry C. Rogers, D.D., 
Kansas City, Mo.; Rev. William O. Thompson, D.D., LL.D., 
Columbus, Ohio; Rev. Edgar W. Work, D.D., New York, N. Y. 

Ruling Elders: John M. T. Finney, M.D., Baltimore, Md., 
Vice-Chairman; Judge John H. DeWitt, LL.D., Nashville, 
Tenn.; Hon. Edward D. Duffield, LL.B., Newark, N. J.; Pres. 
Cheesman A. Herrick, Ph.D., LL.D., Philadelphia, Pa.; Hon. 
Nelson H. Loomis, LL.D., Omaha, Nebr.; Hon. Nathan G. 
Moore, LL.D., Oak Park, Ill.; Robert E. Speer, D.D., New 
xorksNY; 

The Special Commission has held four meetings as follows: 
Atlantic City, N. J., September 22-24, 1925, the Commission 
convening at the call of the Moderator of the General Assem- 
bly, and completing its organization by the election of the Rey. 
Lewis 8S. Mudge, D.D., LL.D., Stated Clerk of the General 
Assembly, as Secretary; Atlantic City, N. J., December 1-3, 
1925; Chicago, Ill., March 11-12, 1926; Philadelphia, Pa., May 
24-25, 1926. 

The Commission appointed a number of Committees, and has 
pursued its inquiry in a spirit of harmony and unity. It is 
now privileged to present the following unanimous report. 


4 


The report comprises five main sections: 

I—Preliminary Statements. 

II—Spiritual Condition of the Church and Causes of Unrest. 

I1I—Constitutional Principle of Unity With Its Historical 
Background. ; 

IV—Power of the General Assembly, and Effect of Its 
Actions. 

V—Conclusions and Recommendations. 


I; 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS 


The Commission feels that the General Assembly has given 
to it a mandate to promote the purity and peace of the Church. 
If there be any constitutional way of stilling unrest and of 
adjusting differences, the Commission believes itself obligated 
to find that way. By the terms of its appointment, it is not 
permitted to consider any alternative; it has no business except 
this. With impressive unanimity, the Assembly voted to erect 
such a Commission. Doubtless it spoke for the whole Church. 
The Church desires that an end be made of the present unrest. 
The Church is praying and longing for such a result and, we 
believe, expects it to be attained. 

Accordingly, the Commission began its work with a deter- 
mination to face the facts, whatever they might prove to be. 
It consulted with representatives of those who were believed 
to be well advised as to causes of unrest, and tried to get their 
views at first hand. It sought to understand their fears, 
whether these be fears for the purity of the faith, or fears for 
the rights of individual liberty. The Commission is not willing 
to deceive itself as to the gravity of the situation confronting 
the Church, nor does it desire to see others misled. Neverthe- 
less, there are conditions which are encouraging. The Com- 
mission does not permit itself to assume the role of alarmist 
nor to magnify problems unduly. 

Certain facts seem to stand out clearly: 

1. Itis not within the province of the Commission to review 
any judicial case decided by the General Assembly. Indeed 
it is a serious question whether the Assembly itself possesses 
any such power, although it has exercised it in a few instances 
and has claimed authority to do so where manifest injustice 
has been done, or where new facts have come to light. But the 
limitation upon the authority of a special commission in this 
respect seems to be clear. Accordingly, this Commission will 
not discuss any case already adjudicated. 

2. There is practically no demand for change in the Consti- 


5 


tution of the Church. Such suggestions to this effect as have 
been made have not met with appreciable response throughout 
the Church. All parties appear to be willing to rest upon the 
Constitution of the Church as it stands. They are agreed that 
remedies for our troubles are within the Constitution itself. 
This is an immense advantage. It leaves to be decided the 
question of interpretation only. If there were insistence upon 
alterations in the substance of our organic law, if it were pro- 
posed to add new articles, or to amend old ones, our difficulties 
would be multiplied greatly. So long as the Church is satisfied 
with the Constitution as it is, we have not broken the continu- 
ity of our history, and are in position to be guided by courses 
adopted in the past when the fathers faced conditions similar 
to those existing today. 


II. 


PRESENT SPIRITUAL CONDITION AND CAUSES OF 
UNREST 


1. In accordance with the instructions which the Assembly 
gave the Commission, we have studied the present spiritual 
condition of our Church. Measured by the standard of the 
perfect Church of Christ, “glorious and without spot or wrinkle 
or any such thing, but holy and without blemish,” our Church 
falls far short, and can only bow in penitence before its Head. 
But judged as an institution of men and women seeking to 
serve their Saviour, we believe that with all its imperfections, 
it is a true and sincere Christian Church, loyal in faith and 
truly devoted in service. 

Throughout its history our Church has grown steadily. It 
has increased faster in proportion to the total population of 
our country than have our sister protestant denominations. In 
the matter of church attendance, the conditions are better than 
they have been within the memory of this generation. The 
number of accessions on confession of faith during the Church 
year 1924-25 was the third largest ever reported. The gifts of 
our churches for their missionary and educational work, and 
for their own support have grown with steady increment from 
decade to decade. 

The question must be asked, however, as to the quality of 
all this. There are more Presbyterians than ever, but are 
they as good and true Christians as were the Presbyterians of 
the past? Is prayer a living reality? Is the Bible studied and 
read as much as in the past? Are our people as well instructed 
in the truth? Is our faith Scriptural and practical and fruit- 
ful? Without attempting any comparative statement, there is 


6 


eround for an answer which declared that there have been both 
gains and losses, which holds to a hopeful view and which, 
nevertheless, realizes the need for a far richer and truer faith 
and life among us. We believe that Christian character and 
faith have not deteriorated. 

It is our deep conviction that the great body of the Church 
is sound in faith, even when that faith is tested by the strictest 
standards. It holds fast to its historic faith in God’s relation 
to this universe as its Creator and as the vital and unifying 
and governing Personality who imparts to the system order, 
stability and moral purpose; in the true deity of our Lord 
Jesus Christ and His true incarnation and His Virgin Birth 
and His resurrection from the dead; in His sinless holiness, 
the atoning sacrifice of His Cross, and His power to forgive 
sins. It stands fast in its faith that He is the only Saviour 
and that He is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto 
God by Him; that the new life from above which is essential 
to entrance into the Kingdom of God is created,in the soul by 
the power of His Holy Spirit; that His Kingdom covers all hu- 
man relationships and actions and that it includes the exercise 
of all power in heaven and on earth. It holds fast to its historic 
conception of the nature of the Church and to the Constitution 
which we have inherited from the fathers. It stands upon the 
divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, whatever divergences 
there may be in their interpretation. It is the unshakeable 
assurance of the Church that, once the true content of the 
Scriptures is ascertained, their authority is supreme and final. 

That God by His Holy Spirit has made a revelation of His 
grace in Christ, and of His righteous will, that we have this 
revelation in the Scriptures, ‘‘the only infallible rule of faith 
and practice,’ that they are sufficient to give knowledge of 
salvation, and of the way of Christian living, and that “the 
Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of religion are to be 
determined . . . can be no other but the Holy Spirit 
speaking in the Scripture,” is a position upon which the Pres- 
byterian Church stands firmly and for which it is ready 
earnestly to contend. 

In these weighty Christian verities as held by the Presby- 
terian Church throughout its entire history, and only briefly 
catalogued here, we have a body of doctrine and a system of 
polity which bind us into a close and abiding unity, a price- 
less and common inheritance from the past which vests the 
title of heirship in every one of us without distinction. This 
is a tremendous fact that must not be forgotten when we are 
reflecting upon differences. In spite of wide geographical 
distances separating our churches and ministers, in spite of 


tf 


varying racial roots which reach back into the centuries, and 
which are fed on sentiments that provoked national wars and 
reddened the earth with the blood of historic conflicts, in spite 
of every extreme of difference in residence and education, in 
social contacts and life-long customs, here we stand, a Church, 
with one heart beating at the center of its corporate life, bound 
together by the firm ties of a shining record that embraces the 
sacrifices and triumphs of the past, of a faith engaging the 
rich loyalties and abundant labors of the present, and of a 
hope, yearning, but sure, and drawing into its stimulating 
experience the holy promise of a fairer future—bound into a 
unity which, we believe, our generation will not break. 

There are invaluable moral and spiritual resources in the 
life of our Church which must not be overlooked even in so 
brief a survey. Some of these are the deposit and tradition of 
life and character which we have inherited from the past, the 
product of home life and training, of Biblical preaching, of a 
faithful, educated and evangelical ministry, of a loyal and 
living faith in Christ as the complete and absolute revelation 
of God, our only and sufficient Saviour. This great deposit 
and all that lies back of it and produces and sustains it, we 
all desire to keep and to pass on to the generations following. 

At the same time, we believe that the Church, while grateful 
for its inheritance, realizes how far short we come of the ideal 
of the New Testament. We believe that worship expressed in 
Service is good, but we believe also that the service which is 
needed today must be fed from still deeper springs of devotion 
and faith. We believe that the influences and interest of the 
Church in the work of moral and social progress is right, but 
we believe also that if this progress is to be true and lasting, 
there is greater need than ever of deep personal spiritual char- 
acter and of definite evangelical faith and teaching. We 
believe that our Church, fundamentally loyal and true, in spite 
of all its shortcomings and deficiencies, wants to find the way 
of largest obedience and service, the way, to use the language 
of the last General Assembly, “of purity, peace, unity and. 
progress.” 

2. It is with the conviction that this is the earnest and 
united longing of the whole body of the Church that we turn 
now to consider, as we have been charged to do, “causes mak- 
ing for unrest in our Church.” These causes we would venture 
to analyze as follows: 

(1) We feel in our Church those general movements and 
tendencies which make for unrest not only in the churches 
but in all the thought and life of the nation and of the world. 
The war brought with it a general unsettling of men’s minds, 


8 


but previous to this the pressure of modern inquiry had per- 
vaded every department of thought, political, economic, social 
and religious, and everything old and established was being 
called in question. In one sense there was nothing new in this. 
Again and again humanity has faced just such great times of 
upheaval and unsettlement. But in another sense, the unrest 
of our day is new. It touches all things, reaches everywhere, 
and is raising the most fundamental questions about God and 
the world, about man and human society. We and the Church 
to which we belong are a part of human life and it is inevitable 
that we should feel the effects of these deep movements of our 
day. The modern world is feeling its way. The Church is 
living in this modern world. There is a vast opportunity as well 
as a vast danger. Perhaps in five respects, especially, these 
general tendencies have contributed to unrest in our denomina- 
tion as in all others. 


(a) The so-called conflict between science and religion, due 
to the false ideas either of science or of religion, or of both, 
has disturbed all churches. The only end of this disturbance 
is to be found in the truth. All truth is God’s truth, and all 
truth is one as God is one. In His own time and way, God 
will make it known according to the Scriptural promise, so 
clearly that all earnest seekers will recognize and grasp it. 
We can afford to wait patiently until men see this come, seek- 
ing ourselves meanwhile to be led on from any error we may 
hold, to the full truth of God. 

(b) Naturalistic or materialistic views of the world which 
threaten and would destroy the Scriptural view of God and 
Christ and of the Gospel, have inevitably affected religious 
thought in all the churches. 


(c) Part, but not all, of this conflict between science and 
religion and between different religious views, would seem to 
be due to the divergent interpretations of religion and of the 
unseen in terms of the immanence or the transcendance of God. 
Back of much of the general unrest would seem to be this 
failure to co-ordinate, as men sometime will be enabled to 
co-ordinate, these two different and yet true and mutually 
essential thoughts about God. 


(d) The lack of religious teaching or the presence of teach- 
ing subversive of religious faith and character in some institu- 
tions of learning, the dearth of religious instruction and 
influence in homes, discontent with old and established ideas 
and practices, the temper of youth, profound changes affect- 
ing all departments of human thought, have inevitably had 
their strong effect upon conditions within the churches. 


9 


(e) Changes in the meaning and use of language and 
diverse understandings and interpretations of the same words, 
have led to much confusion and uncertainty. Some are dis- 
turbed because they believe that others are departing from the 
faith while making use of its forms of speech, and some are 
disturbed because they believe that they are accused of such 
departure, though they declare that in their own consciences 
they are confident of full loyalty to all essential truth. 

These are five of many causes of unrest which, perhaps, can 
be dealt with ultimately only through the general tendencies 
from which they originate. It is well to discern what these 
general causes are so that we may see them and other causes, 
and the whole problem of our Christian life and work, in right 
perspective. 

(2) Perhaps to these causes coming in from outside, we 
should add the causes coming down from our past. There 
are some who hold that there have always been two types or 
schools of Presbyterianism, merging together at the center, 
and in the main body of the Church, but more or less discern- 
ibly different at the extreme. There are some who hold that 
the Westminster Confession shows traces of two types of 
thought and that the Old and the New Schools are self-per- 
petuating forms of Presbyterianism. The present so-called 
conservative and liberal elements in the Church, it is held 
by some, represent in a sense these old divisions. Neither 
element is willing to accept the reproach of departure from 
the historic position of the Church. Both are convinced of 
their loyal evangelical character. But one cause of unrest 
is found in the fear, on one hand, that the liberal element 
embraces some who have been too much influenced by the 
naturalistic tendencies of today, and the fear, on the other 
hand, that the conservative element embraces some who would 
abridge the just liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of 
the Church. There is distrust between those who believe that 
they stand for proper freedom and flexibility, and those who 
believe that they stand for the true authority of the Church 
and the integrity of its faith. Some feel that the differences 
here are not too great to be comprehended in our Church. 
Others feel that they represent irreconcilable divergences. 

(3) Causes arising in the realm of constitutional and 
administrative questions. 

(a) There are misunderstanding and diversity of views as 
to the authority of the General Assembly in the matter of 
interpretations and deliverances affecting doctrine. The As- 
sembly has made such interpretations and deliverances and 
‘has declared its competency so to do, but there are some who 


10 


hold that in all such actions the Assembly has exceeded its 
constitutional power, or that it has done so in some of the 
particular actions which it has taken. Others deny this and 
believe that in these matters the Assembly has been wholly 
within its powers. Still others hold that the Assembly is com- 
petent to make interpretations of doctrine, but not to issue 
doctrinal deliverances. 

(b) There is difference of view also as to the authority of 
the General Assembly over the Presbyteries in the matter of 
licensure of candidates. The Assembly has held that it had 
constitutional power of review and control, and that it was 
both competent and obligated to determine under this power 
the essential conditions of licensure. There are Presbyteries 
and ministers and laymen who hold that, either in whole or in 
a measure which recent actions of the Assembly have invaded, 
the rights of determining the conditions and requirements of 
licensure belong under our government to the Presbyteries. On 
the other hand, there is unrest because of the claim of some 
Presbyteries of the right to license candidates in contravention 
of the admonition of the Assembly. 

(c) There has been and is divergence of view with regard 
to the so-called “Five Points” of the General Assembly’s 
deliverances of 1910, 1916 and 1923. Some have held that it 
was altogether competent and right for the Assembly to single 
out these doctrines and to declare them “essential.” Others 
have held that such a discriminatory selection was not war- 
ranted, that some of the doctrines are not stated in terms 
either of the Scriptures or of the Standards, and that the 
word “essential” is itself indefinite and open to misconception. 
For whom and to what are these doctrines “essential ?” 

(d) There are differences of opinion, too, in connection with 
the question of the true principle of tolerance, the just bounds 
of confessional freedom of interpretation of the Standards, and 
the nature of our terms of subscription. There are some who 
hold that no real issue exists here, that there is full recognition 
of the right of diverse interpretation of what is in the 
Standards, but that the real issue is over the denial of plain 
and essential statements of the Standards and even of plain 
statements of fact in the Scriptural account of the life of our 
Lord. Among those who take a different view of this matter, 
are some who think that there is need for revision of our terms 
of subscription or for some clearer declaration of the rights of 
those who subscribe to the Standards, and of their obligation 
only to the system of doctrine which the Standards contain; 
but others think that the present terms and declarations and 
guarantees are adequate and that all that is necessary is a 


11 


spirit of trust among us and a recognition of divergences of 
view which are within our just liberties and do not affect our 
essential evangelical faith. 

(e) Involved in these causes of unrest is the general issue 
already stated, namely, on one hand, fear that the integrity 
of the doctrine of the Church and the constitutional powers of 
the General Assembly were in peril, and, on the other hand, 
fear that just liberties of thought and conscience in the 
Church and the constitutional power of Presbyteries were 
threatened. 

(f{) The process of Board consolidation and reorganization 
has not been a smooth and easy one, and there are problems 
still to be worked out in connection with the new system. 
Whether justly or unjustly, the Boards have been criticized 
for their constitution, their administration and their expendi- 
tures. Further questions have been raised also in connection 
with new plans of administration, budget and finance, which 
have brought discussion and unsettlement. 

(g) And lastly, there are many women in the Church who 
are not satisfied with present administrative conditions. Some 
of them fear the loss of the organizations through which they 
have worked so long. Some regard as unjust the lack of repre- 
sentation of women in the Church. 

4, Doctrinal and theological causes. Is our unrest due 
to radical theological differences affecting our fundamental 
evangelical convictions, which cannot be met by our constitu- 
tional provisions, and which make our continued unity impos- 
sible? There are some who declare that this is the fact. We 
have given careful consideration to all the evidence which 
has been available. 

(a) It has been declared by some that there has been a 
general and fundamental departure from evangelical faith. A 
statement has been brought to the attention of the Commission 
setting forth the view which some hold of general religious 
conditions at the present day as follows: ‘This controversy 
centers about two great questions; the divine character and 
authority of the Bible and the deity and work of Christ. 
One party to the controversy believes and stoutly affirms 
and maintains that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, in- 
fallible Word of God, the only rule of faith and practice; 
that Jesus Christ is truly God as well as truly man, and as 
such, an object of worship; that by His life upon earth, and, 
above all, by His death on the Cross—in which event He offered 
up himself as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and to recon- 
cile us to God—He did that apart from which there could have 
been no forgiveness for the sons of men; that after haying 


12 


made atonement for our sins, He arose from the dead and sat 
down at the right hand of the Father, where He reigns as 
King, and by the operation of His kingly power, through the 
instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, regenerates and sanctifies 
His people; that He will return to the earth, according to His 
promise, and create a new heaven and a new earth, wherein 
dwelleth righteousness. The other party, with great violence 
and ridicule, denies all this, and declares that the Bible is 
only traditional literature, that Christ was nothing more than 
aman filled with the Spirit of God, and of service to us chiefly 
as an example. His death is nothing more or less than that of 
any good man. He never rose from the dead, and He will 
never return to the earth.” 

This statement was not specifically declared to apply to the 
Presbyterian Church, but there are some who express fear 
of such condition in our own body. As far, however, as the 
Commission has been able to learn, there is in the Presbyterian 
Church no second party such as is described in this quota- 
tion. And we believe that the action of the last General 
Assembly in appointing this Commission to study causes of 
unrest and to make a report to the next General Assembly 
“to the end that the purity, peace, unity and progress of 
the Church might be assured,” is evidence that the Assem- 
bly believed in its own evangelical unity and in the evangelical 
unity of our Church at large. 

(b) But even though our Church as a whole is evangelically 
united, it is held by some that ultra liberal views have crept 
in and that there are ministers from whose preaching and faith 
the supernatural note of the Gospel has faded. On the other 
hand, it is held by some that there are men of ultra exclusive 
views who deny the true liberty of Christ and who misrepresent 
the Gospel to men. To the extent that these things are true, 
they constitute grave causes of unrest which should be dealt 
with first by brotherly counsel and then, if need be, by suitable 
Presbyterial action. Indeed, we are persuaded that one chief 
ground of dissatisfaction is the failure of Presbyteries to exer- 
cise their proper functions in connection with the life and 
faith of the Church, and in accordance with the clear provi- 
sions of the Form of Government, (Chapter X, Section VII,) 
and of the Book of Discipline. 

Many ministers and elders are without knowledge of the 
Constitution and history of our Church. During the past fif- 
teen years, of 5,186 new names on our roll of ministers, 1,883 
came from other denominations. They now represent some of 
our most useful and devoted ministers, but they and all of us, 
both ministers and elders, need to study diligently the Confes- 


13 


sion and polity of our Church, to the end that Presbyteries 
may fulfil their indispensable duties toward maintaining “the 
peace, purity, unity and progress of the Church.” 

(c) It is believed by some that there are certain differences 
of doctrinal view that have developed, which lie beyond the 
bounds of any questions of interpretation or meaning of terms 
of subscription, such as the doctrine of Scripture and the fact 
of the Virgin Birth, and that these represent a fundamental 
and unavoidable ground of division of opinion. 

5. There isa further group of causes of unrest to be con- 
sidered. We refer to the misunderstandings and misinforma- 
tion of which we have learned, but far more to the misjudg- 
ments and unfair and untrue statements which have been made 
in speech and in printed publications. Whether or not these 
be actionable under the laws against slander and libel, they 
are in clear violation of the injunction of the Church. No 
one can realize how grave and extensive the moral, and pos- 
sibly the legal offense in this matter has been unless he goes 
over, aS we have had to do under the instructions of the As- 
sembly, the statements which have been made. If we are to 
have peace and purity in the Church, all slander and mis- 
representation must be brought to an end. The Spirit of 
Christ must be allowed to bring forth His fruits among us 
and all evil speaking must be put away, to the end that 
“speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things 
into Him, who is the head, even Christ; from whom all the 
body fitly framed and knit together through that which every 
joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of 
each several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the 
building up of itself in love.” 


ITT. 


CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF UNITY WITH ITS 
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 


Foremost among the forces making for unity is a common 
faith expressed in our confessional symbols, but intimately 
related to this, and defining the way in which the faith is to 
be held among brethren in the Presbyterian Church, is the 
constitutional principle of toleration. This principle has been 
obscured in the recent controversies which have agitated the 
Church, and this obscurity underlies many of the causes of 
unrest set forth in the preceding section. 

Thus far the Commission has put emphasis upon the opinions 
of others and has attempted to present fairly the differences 
of view which are unsettling the thought of the Church and 


14 


impairing its spiritual life. The Commission desires now to 
submit some of its own considerations with special reference 
to the best method of approach to the problem before us. 

A spiritual revival and a reconsecration of every life to 
Christ are imperative if harmony is to prevail and our Church 
is to render full service. Doubtless everyone will assent to 
this statement. In all our discussions its truth should be 
assumed as a prime condition of accord. We must begin on 
our knees, with confession of our sins and sincere repent- 
ance, and must move forward in the spirit of renewed alle- 
giance to the Master and of closer fellowship with Him which 
will conquer our selfishness, pride and hardness, and will 
insure in us humility of mind and the purity of heart which 
yields a vision of God. 

Following this, our only safe and successful method will be 
found in the field of constitutional processes. Our Church, 
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has been bound together 
by its Constitution, and the Constitution must keep it together. 

Some brethren in the Church hold that the provisions and 
statements of the Constitution are specific and definite, that 
the very language itself makes an end of controversy, and that 
this language has been confirmed by official deliverances of a 
number of General Assemblies. 

On the other hand, there are those who claim that such 
reading of the Constitution is unwarranted, that it cannot 
fairly carry the restricted and limited construction often put 
upon it, and that some official deliverances of the Assembly 
have had the effect of adding to the Constitution, and so vir- 
tually amending it by extra-constitutional processes. In sup- 
port of their position, they quote the words of the Constitution 
itself, which say, “that all church power, whether exercised 
by the body in general, or in the way of representation by 
delegated authority, is only ministerial and declarative; that 
is to say, that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith 
and manners; that no church judicatory ought to pretend to 
make laws, to bind the conscience in virtue of their own author- 
ity; and that all their decisions should be founded upon the 
revealed will of God.” (Form of Government, Chap. I, Sec- 
tion VII.) 

These differences, we are convinced, do not exclude the ele- 
ments of a basic unity. Ardently devoted to the Presbyterian 
Church, the supporters of both views wish to promote its wel- 
fare; both desire to see it become a mightier agency in the hand 
of God for extending His kingdom. Surely they are not hope- 
lessly apart if both are moved by a deep loyalty to our Lord, 


15 


and also to that branch of the Church in which both are now 
privileged to serve. 

The Commission ventures to remind the General Assembly 
that while the Constitution does contain affirmations of doc- 
trine and provisions for order that are both specific and defi- 
nite, there is also built into its fabric the Christian principle | 
of toleration. The language of some of the central doctrines 
of the Confession of Faith is so broad as to give an im- 
pression that these were cast in such terms with a studied 
purpose of covering differences already in existence when the 
document was framed; and it is a significant fact that when- 
ever, in its entire history, divisions and separations have 
vexed the Presbyterian Church and weakened its work, these 
breaches have been healed, if healed at all, by a return to the 
simple and hospitable statements of the Confession. What 
stronger witness can there be that, if the principles woven into 
the Confession of Faith and the phraseology in which they are 
expressed tend to effect reunions, cordial acceptance of the 
same principles and a correct reading of the language defining 
them will tend to prevent disunion ? 

A brief review of the discussions which have troubled our 
Church in the past throws a revealing light upon the path 
which we are now treading. Controversy within the Presby- 
terian Church is not a new thing. We have passed this way 
before. 

1. The first of these controversies within the American 
Presbyterian Church ended with the acceptance of the Adopt- 
ing Act in 1729. The first Presbytery, formed in 1706, and the 
first Synod, organized in 1716, fell heir to the discussions 
over subscription to the Confession of Faith which had dis- 
tressed the churches in the motherland and had brought divi- 
sion into the Irish Church. Before 1729 the American 
Presbyterian Church was divided in its sentiment regarding 
subscription to the Confession of Faith. Jonathan Dickinson, 
the first President of Princeton, and one of the ablest men in 
the Church, opposed it. He said, “I have a higher opinion of 
the Assembly’s Confession than of any other book of the kind 
existent in the world, yet I don’t think it perfect. I know it 
to be the dictates of fallible men, and I know of no law, either 
of religion or reason, that obliges me to subscribe to it.” The 
matter was keenly debated and in the end a compromise was 
effected. The Adopting Act was worded so as to be acceptable 
to everyone, and laid the basis of a creedal church. The 
Adopting Act reads: 

“Although the Synod do not claim or Rrevend Jf any author- 
ity of imposing our faith upon other men’s consciences, but 


16 


do profess our just dissatisfaction with and abhorence of such 
impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and 
authority in the Church, being willing to receive one another 
as Christ has received us to the glory of God, and admit to 
fellowship in sacred ordinances all such as we have grounds 
to believe Christ will at last admit to the Kingdom of heaven, 
yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the faith 
once delivered to the saints be kept pure and uncorrupt among 
us, and so handed down to our posterity. And do therefore 
agree that all the ministers of this Synod, or that shall here- 
after be admitted into this Synod, shall declare their agree- 
ment in and approbation of the Confession of Faith, with the 
Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at 
Westminster, as being, in all the essential and necessary arti- 
cles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian 
doctrine, and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms 
as the Confession of our Faith. And we do also agree, that 
all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall always take care 
not to admit any candidate for the ministry into the exercise 
of the sacred function unless he declares his agreement in 
opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said 
Confession, either by subscribing the said Confession of Faith 
and Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of their assent 
thereto, as such minister or candidate shall think best. And 
in case any minister of this Synod, or any candidate for the 
ministry, shall have any scruple with respect to any article or 
articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall at the time 
of his making said declaration declare his sentiments to the 
Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him 
to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to 
ministerial communion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge 
his scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential 
and necessary in doctrine, worship or government. But if the 
Synod or Presbytery shall judge such ministers or candidates 
erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the 
Synod or Presbytery shall declare them uncapable of com- 
munion with them. And the Synod do solemnly agree that 
none of us will traduce or use any approbrious term of those 
that differ from us in these extra-essential and not necessary 
points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, 
kindness and brotherly love, as if they had not differed from 
us in such sentiments.” 

The phrase “essential and necessary articles’, thrice repeated, 
contains the germ of differences that still vex the Church. 
When the adopting Act was enacted the particular doctrine 
objected to was the submission of the Church to the State; 


17 


those submitting to the Act objected to including this doctrine 
as one of the essential and necessary articles. The principle 
incorporated in the Act, however, has a wider application. 

2. The second controversy resulted not in union but in 
separation. It is not necessary here to discuss the issues 
which led to the division of the Church into the Synod of 
Philadelphia and the Synod of New York. The separation 
took place in 1741. Differences developing out of the revival 
with which Jonathan Edwards was identified led, in time, to 
misrepresentation, suspicion and distrust. Men in the min- 
istry were openly charged with insincerity and heresy. The 
immediate cause of the disruption, however, was the conten- 
tion on the part of the Presbytery of New Brunswick that, as 
a Presbytery, it had exclusive right to ordain men to the 
Christian ministry in opposition to the expressed will of the 
Synod. The Synod divided on a vote of 12 to 10, and Dr. 
Charles Hodge calls it “a disorderly rupture.” The breach 
existed until 1758, when a union was effected on the basis of 
mutual confidence and the Standards of the Church. The 
question of the right of Presbytery to the final decision in the 
matter of ordination of candidates for the Gospel ministry 
was left undecided. 

3. The third controversy led, in 1810, to the formation of 
the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. The General Assembly 
had been instituted in 1789, its powers defined and restricted 
by a written constitution, and the present form of subscription 
to the Standards of the Church adopted. A wide-spread re- 
vival, having its origin in Kentucky, stirred the Church into 
renewed activity. It was attended, doubtless, by some fanati- 
cism, but was a genuine work of grace, and the Church was 
brought face to face with new problems and new needs. Candi- 
dates for the ministry were ordained who made a qualifying 
subscription to the Standards of the Church, and the crisis 
came when the Presbytery of Cumberland, standing upon what 
it claimed to be its rights, and in opposition to the expressed 
will of the General Assembly, ordained men who were not 
able to subscribe to all the doctrines of the Confession of Faith, 
and in 1810 the Cumberland Presbyterian Church was formed. 

This breach lasted for almost a century and was healed 
after the Revision of the Confession of Faith and the adoption 
of the Declaratory Act in 1903. In the deliverances of the 
General Assembly of 1906, preparatory to the union with the 
Cumberland Presbyterian Church, the General Assembly made 
the following pronouncement: “That ministers, ruling elders, 
and deacons, in expressing approval of the Westminster Con- 
fession of Faith as revised in 1903, are required to assent only 


18 


to the system of doctrine contained therein, and not to every 
particular statement in it; and inasmuch as the two Assem- 
blies meeting in 1904 did declare that there was then a suffi- 
cient agreement between the systems of doctrine contained 
in the Confession of the two Churches to warrant the Union 
of the Churches, therefore the change of doctrinal Standards 
resulting from the Union involves no change of belief on the 
part of any who were ministers, ruling elders, or deacons in 
the Cumberland Presbyterian Church.” 

The reunion of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and 
the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 
was effected in 1906 by constitutional processes on the basis 
of mutual confidence and the Standards of the Church as 
amended in 1903, no action being taken on the right of the 
l’resbytery to have absolute jurisdiction over the ordination 
of candidates to the Gospel ministry. 

4, The fourth crisis in the Church issued in the division 
known as the Old School and the New School. The history 
which led up to this separation in 1837 is complex and involved. 
There were several contributing causes. The Act of Union 
adopted in 1801, by means of which Congregational ministers 
had voting power in the General Assembly and Presbyterian 
ministers the right to vote in Congregational Associations, 
was the chief contributing cause, but doctrinal differences also 
created suspicion and mistrust. It was declared in the so-called 
“Act of Testimony”, that “Presbyteries were convulsed by 
collusions and Synods and Assemblies made theatres for the 
open display of humiliating scenes of human passion and 
weakness.” The issue ebbed and flowed with successive Assem- 
blies and in 1887 the disruption took place. The separation 
lasted until 1870, a period of thirty-three years, and was finally 
healed on the basis of mutual confidence, the spirit of tolera- 
tion and the Standards of the Church which had been accepted 
and subscribed by each of the uniting Churches. 

From this brief review one conclusion is inescapable; divi- 
sions and schisms have not cured theological controversy in 
the Presbyterian Church. If the question be raised as to 
whether the issues under consideration today are more impor- 
tant than those which occasioned unrest and division in the 
past, the answer is that those engaged in debating them 
believed that the questions then at stake were vital to the 
Gospel of redemption. Prior to the division of 1741 it was 
stated before the Synod that certain views held by Presby- 
terian ministers “do entirely overset all supernatural religion, 
render regeneration a vain and needless thing, and involve a 
crimson blasphemy against the blessed God.” In the circular 


19 


letter sent out by the General Assembly of 1837, this Assembly 
set forth the doctrines of the New School as being “in fact 
another Gospel; and it is impossible for those who faithfully 
adhere to their public standards to walk with those who adopt 
such opinions with either comfort or confidence.” 

The experience of the past teaches us many valuable lessons. 
Certain of our State constitutions set forth the principle in 
these terms: “A frequent recurrence to the principles of self 
government is essential to maintain the blessings of liberty.” 
From the events of our own history we cull the remedy for 
many of our present ills. Two controlling facts emerge. One 
is, that the Presbyterian system admits of diversity of view 
where the core of truth is identical. Another is, that the 
Church has flourished best and showed most clearly the good 
hand of God upon it, when it laid aside its tendencies to stress 
these differences, and put the emphasis on its unity of spirit. 

Our constitution, like the tables of the law, has two aspects. 
It deals not only with our duties to God, but also with our 
relations to each other, and these are equally imperative. Our 
Lord Himself condensed all the commandments into two, 
which are specific on the divine and human relationships, and 
said “On these two commandments hang all the law and the 
prophets.” The Church at large should illustrate, as well as 
demonstrate, the power of the Gospel to bind up wounds and 
to soften animosities; and such, we are convinced, was the pur- 
pose of incorporating in the Presbyterian Constitution, the 
obligation for brethren to maintain a patient, considerate and 
brotherly attitude toward each other. The various groups in 
the present discussion declare their approval of and adherence 
to our Constitution. These declarations must be accepted as 
sincere. All assert that the Constitution is the only adequate 
test of Presbyterianism. The Church has many times solved 
its difficulties by this criterion alone. 

The principle of toleration when rightly conceived and frank- 
ly and fairly applied is as truly a part of our constitution 
as are any of the doctrines stated in that instrument. Not 
only is the principle expressed in definite terms, but its place 
and authority as a part of our organic law is further indicated 
in a number of articles by clear and necessary implication. 
Furthermore, it is recognized through unbroken practice in 
the administration of our form of government and our dis- 
cipline. 3 

Toleration as a principle applicable within the Presbyterian 
Church refers to an attitude and a practice according to which 
the status of a minister or other ordained officer, is acknowl- 
edged and fellowship is extended to him, even though he may 


20 « 


hold some views that are individual on points not regarded as 
essential to the system of faith which the Church professes. 
Presbyterianism is a great body of belief, but it is more than 
a belief; it is also a tradition, a controlling sentiment. The ties 
which bind us to it are not of the mind only; they are ties of 
the heart as well. There are people who, despite variant 
opinions, can never be at home in any other communion. They 
were born into the Presbyterian Church. They love its name, 
its order and its great distinctive teachings. In its fellowship 
they have a precious inheritance from their forbears. Their 
hearts bow at its altars and cherish a just pride in its noble 
history. Attitudes and sentiments like these are treasures 
which should not be undervalued hastily nor cast aside lightly. 
A sound policy of constitutional toleration is designed to con- 
serve such assets whenever it is possible to do so without 
endangering the basic positions of the Church. 

The liberty which toleration allows is not to be judged 
finally by individuals. It is freedom with boundaries, and these 
boundaries are fixed by constitutional authority. Perhaps 
we are prone to forget that toleration begins with the mass. 
It is the self-imposed restraint which an organized body 
lays upon its own action. Either by a written constitu- 
tion or by prevailing practice an organization draws lines 
beyond which it pledges itself not to pass. It delimits areas 
which it will not invade, and within these areas the individual 
member of the organization has freedom. The entire body 
exercises its own liberty first, in voluntarily circumscribing 
the field of its action, and this, in turn, guarantees the liberty 
of the individual outside of such limits. 

It follows, therefore, that whenever a question arises as to 
where these limits are, the issue must be decided by the organi- 
zation and not by the individual member of it. Ags applied 
within the Presbyterian Church, this means that such issues 
will be determined either generally, by amendment of the 
Constitution, or particularly, by Presbyterial authority, sub- 
ject to the constitutional right of appeal. 

Toleration does not involve any lowering of the Standards. 
It does not weaken the testimony of the Church as to its 
assured convictions. It does not imply that support is offered 
to what may be regarded as a brother’s error. But it does 
mean that in the spirit of Christ, patience is exercised by the 
body of the Church toward those deemed to be at fault in some 
of their beliefs, remembering our own proneness to err, in order 
that by the manifestation of such graces, and by prayer, 
together with fidelity in our own witnessing, all, finally, may 


21 


be brought to see eye to eye in a fuller apprehension of the 
truth, and led into a convincing compliance with the Master’s 
new commandment that His disciples should love one another. 
The principle here set forth can not be better stated than is 
done in the Form of Government, Chap. I, Section V: 

“That while under the conviction of the above principle, they 
think it necessary to make effectual provision, that all who are 
admitted as teachers, be sound in the faith; they also believe 
that there are truths and forms, with respect to which men of 
good characters and principles may differ. And in all these 
they think it the duty both of private Christians and societies, 
to exercise mutual forbearance towards each other.” 


LVe 


POWER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND EFFECT 
OF ITS ACTIONS 


Another constitutional principle which must be recognized 
and applied, relates to the power of the General Assembly 
and the effect of Assembly actions. There appears to have 
been much confusion in the thinking of the Church regarding 
this general subject. F 

Until recently our Church has labored under the disadvan- 
tage of having no continuing body of judicial officers whose 
duty it was to study and define the principles, and to analyze 
and classify the precedents and deliverances which express our 
conceptions of applied ecclesiastical authority. Even now the 
tenure of membership in the Permanent Judicial Commission 
is so brief that one scarcely becomes settled in the perform- 
ance of his duties, before his term of office expires. Previous 
to the institution of the Permanent Judicial Commission, these 
matters were handled usually by bodies appointed by the Gen- 
eral Assembly as need for them might arise. The result has 
been that until a comparatively late date, no person or group 
of persons has been designated officially to keep these matters 
under continuing investigation. Only as individual minds and 
temperamental interest may have inclined in that direction, 
and this without authority, has there been any orderly and 
sustained canvass of the problems involved. As a consequence, 
inconsistencies, and even some contradictions appear in this 
field along the path of our Church’s history. Nevertheless, 
there are some principles which, in the opinion of the Com- 
mission, appear to be sound in logic and well established in 
practice. 

1. The General Assembly is not heir to all the powers of 
The (General) Synod. This is a distinction often ignored by 


22 


those who quote the actions of The (General) Synod, as though 
its authority passed over unchanged to the General Assembly. 
The (General) Synod was composed of all the ministers in the 
denomination and of a representative from the session of 
every particular church. The (General) Synod was the whole 
Church. Supreme authority inhered in it. The (General) 
Synod had no constitution except that which belonged to its 
own nature and to the nature of the Presbyterian system, 
besides such statements and decisions as, in the exercise of 
its supreme power, it chose to make. By the same power, it 
could rescind or alter any of these actions without reference 
to any superior authority. The Adopting Act is a case in point. 
This measure was not referred to the Church through any other 
channel, because the Church was deemed to be fully present 
in The (General) Synod itself. The same is true of the reunion, 
in 1758, of the two divisions of the body which had separated 
in 1741. It is true also of the adoption of our present Constitu- 
tion. This organic law in its original form was never remitted 
to the Presbyteries for ratification. Even in so vital a matter, 
the power of The (General) Synod was complete and final. 

There was some similarity between The (General) Synod 
and the British Parliament in respect to the freedom of both 
bodies from restraints, except as those restraints inhered in 
the character of the institutions themselves, and in the will 
of their members, guided, but not controlled, by precedents. 
There was no formal, defined or written constitution. Prece- 
dent and history and the experience of similar bodies through- 
out the world had their effect, but the force of all of these 
could be set aside. To quote actions of The (General) Synod 
therefore, as though they constituted controlling precedents 
as to the methods by which similar actions may be taken by 
the General Assembly, is clearly inadmissible. 

A fact supporting this last statement is that the General 
Assembly has limited, defined, and delegated powers. It has 
another authority above it, namely, the Constitution of the 
Church. The General Assembly did not make the Constitution 
[although the (General) Synod did make it], but the Con- 
stitution made the General Assembly. Herein is the chief 
difference between the two bodies. 

The only way by which the General Assembly can bring 
about a change in our Form of Government, Book of Discipline 
or Directory for Worship is by proposing the change to the 
Presbyteries, and having it approved by a majority of all the 
Presbyteries. Before any amendments or alterations in our 
Confession of Faith or the Larger and Shorter Catechisms 
can be brought about by the General Assembly, they must be 


23 


favorably acted upon by a committee of ministers and ruling 
elders, in numbers not less than fifteen, appointed by the 
General Assembly and its action adopted by the Assembly, 
- and they must thereafter be approved by two-thirds of all the 
Presbyteries. 

If The (General) Synod, as respects its powers, may be 
compared with the British Parliament, the General Assembly 
may be likened to the three departments of the United States 
Government combined in one, the executive, the legislative 
and the judicial. The General Assembly exercises all of these 
functions though without confusing them. In our system of 
national government, each of these departments exercises lim- 
ited and delegated authority. No one of them is a law unto 
itself—not even the Supreme Court. The powers and juris- 
diction of the Supreme Court are conferred by the Federal 
Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot transcend these 
powers against the will of the people expressed in the Con- 
stitution, without introducing anarchy into the people’s gov- 
ernment. The General Assembly sits sometimes in an executive 
and administrative capacity; again it may act as a legistative 
body; and yet again as a judicial tribunal; but always with 
restricted powers. 

In the performance of each of these functions, the General 
Assembly possesses a somewhat different character. The 
failure to distinguish among these functions performed by 
the Assembly, as they have been distinguished in our American 
civil government, is the cause of some of the confusion which 
has crept into our minds regarding this matter. 

2. From the above statement of principles it follows that 
at least three differing methods of setting precedents and 
enacting laws within the Presbyterian Church must be sep- 
arated in our thinking. 

(1) There will be no question, perhaps, regarding the legis- 
lative and administrative acts of the General Assembly. 
Kvery one recognizes the scope and effect of these powers when 
exercised. It is necessary to remember, however, that deliver- 
ances of the General Assembly, when it is sitting ether in its 
legislative or administrative capacity, should be clearly distin- 
guished from decisions in judicial cases when the Assembly 
exercises the powers of a judicial court; and these in turn are 
not to be confounded with the ordainment of organic law by 
the processes provided in the Constitution and referred to 
above. When the General Assembly as a non-judicial body 
makes deliverances, they are entitled to great respect and 
deference, but they are subject to modification or repeal at 
any time by a majority vote of the General Assembly. 


24 


(2) When, however, the General Assembly acts in its 
judicial character, the effect is different, that is, if we are to 
follow the practices established in the civil sphere, now become 
a part of the thought of our people, and we know of no other 
course so safe. A judicial case is heard upon issues clearly 
presented, upon notice to and full argument by the parties, 
and it is decided after mature deliberation. No rule is laid 
down in such a case that is not applicable to the facts and 
determinative of the issues. | 

When a judicial case which comes to the General Assembly 
by constitutional procedure, a case which is issued by the 
General Assembly and judgment entered, the matter is dis- 
posed of, and the judgment in that particular case is final. 
The reason is that the Constitution of the Church does not 
provide for any higher judicial tribunal than the General 
Assembly, and an end of litigation must be reached somewhere. 
The decision in such a case stands as a powerful and persuasive 
precedent until altered or reversed. 

The General Assembly has the power in its judicial capacity 
to record a contrary judgment in another case, resting upon a 
state of facts similar to, or precisely the same as, those of the 
former case. The General Assembly has power to do this at 
the same sitting of the court (though it is highly improbable 
that it would do so), and any succeeding Assembly also can 
create such new precedents, by the same means of a judicial 
decision in a specific case. 

(3) It will be seen that this is something dudes different 
from the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution. It 
would be intolerable if the General Assembly, whose powers 
are limited by the Constitution, could, even when sitting as 
a judicial court, amend by indirection, the organic law of the 
Church, which contains within itself provisions for effecting 
orderly change. No one contends that the Supreme Court of 
the United States has the power to amend the Federal Con- 
stitution by adding to or taking from it, its function being 
limited to interpretation of the Constitution in cases of am- 
biguity. The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church can be 
amended only by the General Assembly and the Presbyteries 
acting concurrently, according to methods defined in the 
Constitution and already referred to. 

5. It is important in this connection to make a clear dis- 
tinction between the judgment which is rendered in any 
particular case, and the reasoning on which that judgment 
rests. The reasoning may be faulty, and may be open to 
attack in another action, but so far as that original case is 
concerned, the judgment stands. It is not unheard of that 


25 


a court may accept the contentions of a litigant, but for 
entirely different reasons from those adduced in the briefs. 
It has also been known that a court may arrive at a correct 
conclusion, but may support it by reasoning which is not 
correct. Thus it is that a principle enunciated in the decision 
of a court of last resort is always subject to challenge when 
it is sought to apply that principle in later cases, either because 
the principle itself is deemed to be faulty, or because the rea- 
sons presented in support of it are thought to be not sound. 

At this point the utmost caution is necessary. It is to be 
presumed that the challenging of a principle laid down in a 
decision of any supreme judicial tribunal will be undertaken 
with great reluctance and under a sense of the heavy respon- 
sibility one assumes in doing so. As a matter of practice in 
the civil courts, there has been strong disposition, which las 
hardened almost into a fixed rule, to let such principles 
stand. However, the fact is plain and unquestioned that 
courts of supreme authority have been known, on sufficient 
occasion, to reverse their own conclusions and not infrequently 
they modify them appreciably. And anyone in the Presby- 
terian Church who believes the issue at stake to be vital and 
imperative has the right, in a new case, to plead for relief 
in later decisions and should have the privilege of doing so, 
if he show sincerity and conscientiousness, without subjecting 
himself to any reflection upon his loyalty to the Church and 
to its institutions. 

The above principles, if rightly applied in a spirit that seeks 
accommodation and concord, should be capable of meeting, in 
so far as legal procedure can meet them, some phases of the 
situation which we are now facing. 


Wh 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 


The principles which we have discussed in the two preceding 
sections, by no means exhaust the questions at issue. One 
of the most important of those remaining to be considered is 
the relative powers of the General Assembly and of the Pres- 
bytery as regards matters over which the Presbytery has 
original jurisdiction. The rights of the Presbyteries and the 
limits of their independency is a question that has been 
involved in at least two of the historic divisions of the Pres- 
byterian Church, that of 1741 and that of 1810, but it never 
has been fully and definitely settled. Divisions in which it 
played a part have been healed by passing it over. The respon- 
sibility of the Presbyteries in licensing and ordaining candi- 


26 


dates for the ministry runs down and roots itself in this 
broader principle of the relation between Presbytery and 
Assembly, and of the full discharge by each body of its con- 
stitutional functions. 

Another aspect of the same general problem is the meaning 
of the phrase “review and control” as used in our Constitution, 
There are a number of questions which can be asked on this 
point, and they are being asked, as already indicated in the 
paragraphs of this report dealing with causes of unrest. They 
demand an answer. 

It is desirable also to secure a more exact definition of the 
phrase “essential and necessary articles of faith” and of the 
authority to determine such articles. This phrase has long 
been prominent in our terminology, and has proved to be a 
cause of uneasiness and confusion. 

It has not been possible to deal adequately with these sub- 
jects. The Commission believes that the work which it was 
appointed to do will not be complete until a study of them 
has been made and conclusions reported. 

It is evident to the Commission that these matters cannot 
be dealt with successfully off-hand. A hasty settlement may 
prove to be no settlement at all. Interests are too sacred and 
feeling too strong to admit of a treatment of the subject which 
does not take account of the healing ‘effects of time. There 
must be time for conference and fellowship, for the modifica- 
tion of opposing attitudes, the harmonizing of divergent opin- 
ions, and for the bringing together of positions that seem to 
be apart. 

There must be occasion and opportunity for those not in 
accord to try to work together upon the basis of principles 
acknowledged by all, but freshly defined and commonly under- 
stood. The Church seeking peace must wait for the spirit of 
peace to spread and for a full maturing of the purpose to 
attain peace. 

The Commission is profoundly convinced that above all 
issues in importance and before every other proposal designed 
to unite our thinking and our spiritual interest, is the impera- 
tive necessity of a quickened loyalty to our Church, to its 
historic standards, and to our living Lord. Any settlement 
which promises to hold together the great masses of our min- 
isters and members must be one which guarantees that through 
their unbroken ranks shall ring the note of undying allegiance 
to the Son of God as he is presented to us in the Scriptures. 

IT IS RECOMMENDED: 

1. That the General Assembly approve the foregoing report 
and commend it to the Church for study as a statement of 


27 


facts and a definition of certain general principles which tend 
to clarify the issues involved in the recent discussions, and as 
furnishing a common ground upon which all members of the 
Church may stand, and from which, by the blessing of God 
and the leading of His Spirit, all may move forward to more 
complete harmony of opinion and to full brotherly accord in 
spirit. 

2. That in furtherance of these purposes, the Commission 
be continued for another year and be charged with the duty 
of considering further the questions referred to in this report 
as not yet having been brought under full investigation, and 
all other remaining questions relating to the general subject, 
and that it report on these to the next General Assembly. 

3. That the General Assembly while welcoming the discus- 
sion of great theological and practical issues lays upon the 
consciences of ministers and members, the duty of exercising 
patience and forbearance, and of refraining from public ex- 
pression of hasty or harsh judgments of the motives of breth- 
ren whose hearts are fully known only to God; especially 
from bringing against individuals “in a calumniating man- 
ner,” and not in the legally prescribed way, charges which 
assail their loyalty as Presbyterian ministers or ruling 
elders, and even their Christian belief, and which otherwise 
tend to weaken their influence as servants of Christ in His 
Church; so that discussion of the serious problems affecting the 
welfare of our Church, in so far as discussion may seem wise 
or necessary, may proceed in a way that will persuade the 
minds and win the hearts of men, stimulate the Church to 
greater activity in carrying forward its task and encourage all 
to provoke one another to love and good works. 

4. That this Assembly records its unshaken loyalty to the 
whole body of evangelical truth, and more specifically, that it 
declares its purpose to uphold the Constitution of our Church 
and to maintain the integrity of its historic and corporate 
witness to our Lord Jesus Christ as He is represented to us in 
the Scriptures, and to the system of doctrine set forth in the 
Westminster Confession of Faith. 


Respectfully submitted, 


(Signed ) 

ALFRED H. BARR. JOHN M. T. FINNEY. 
HUGH T. KERR. JOHN H. DEWITT. 

MARK A. MATTHEWS. EDWARD D. DUFFIELD. 
LAPSLEY A. McAFEE. CHEESMAN A. HERRICK. 
HARRY C. ROGERS. NELSON H. LOOMIS. 
WILLIAM O. THOMPSON. NATHAN G. MOORE. 
EDGAR. W. WORK. ROBERT E. SPEER. 


HENRY C. SWEARINGEN, 
Chairman, 


Se eee eee ere ee ee a wen 


BX 8969.1 .P74 1925 
Presbyterian Church in the 


U.S.A. General Assembly. 
Report of the Special 


Commission of 1995 to tha 





